To any with concerns GC3 is overpriced modded GC2

There have been some discussion on steam that GC3 is a modded GC2 and the price tag is too expensive. I played GC1 beta tested all GC2 titles. I also was a jerk back when I posted on the GC2 forums. Now I've matured, hopefully, and I have started my own software company and have experience in programming and have released my first title and am about to release three more shortly. I haven't bought the game yet but hopefully I know what I'm talking about.

For those who may have concerns that...

* The price tag is high

* Galactic Civilizations III is a modded version of Galactic Civilizations II

* Stardock has released DLC for Galactic Civilizations III that implements features in Galactic Civilizations II

To me the price tag is fair. Stardock's GalCiv2 used vector graphics so if someone plays GalCiv2 on a modern 4K Ultra screen the aspect ratio is not skewed. Stardock did what they could to make the graphics of GalCiv2 future proof. GalCiv3 is a new 3d engine with Stardock's same initiative. They added ship roles in GC3. In GalCiv2 what they started for the version of combat was complained about as US revolutionary war type fighting where everyone stands in a line and shoots each other. GalCiv2 wasn't about tactical battles where players control ship combat. It was about strategy. Strategy in applying your current tech to ship design verses the opposition. The purpose of the battle viewer was to see what was right/wrong with your ship design, how to improve. The graphics are also better. The combat viewer in GC3 is a major improvement and new software. The logistics of carriers have been implemented in battles now and done correctly. I'll get to that in a different post. And GC2 was without carriers but it was built in a way that it wasn't deficient without them. I built many fighters without hypderdrives and had them defend shipyards in GC2.

GC3 is a different game built on the same idea of GC2. More has been added and what is already there has been improved upon. More galactic resources are available to mind and mine. I don't have the game...yet, I have been spending my resources on my own development endeavors. There are planets that can't be colonized but can be mined. Black holes can be turned into a resource. In GC2 you could mine asteroids to increase production. From what I understand GC3 doesn't have asteroid mining at least not what it was in GC2. But GC3 makes you build starbases if you want to mine galactic resources within the base sphere of influence. In GC2 you could send out a ship to build mining stations on every asteroid. Asteroid mining stations were defenseless but would increase production greatly if you had a lot of them going to one planet. And I can see why the asteroid mining of GC2 hasn't been implemented in GC3. GC3 has added more galactic resources with specific results for mining each one. GC2 asteroid mining was a general way of increasing production. GC3 has done away with that kind of space mining and improved game play. You also have different tech added using and improving on the same idea of varied tech trees for races. The karma or ethics system of the game has been improved and overhauled. Making decisions is a fun part of the story when playing GC2. Now when you make decisions you can use points gained to gain access to civilization ethical traits that have pros and cons to them, besides the immediate effect of the choices made. In GC2 you couldn't get those 'traits' unless you became committed to an ethic. Now you can get access to traits in the good and also get access to traits in the bad and neutral ethics at the same time. The core game is more complex.

The way DLC is being implemented in GC3 is different than in GC2. In GC2 a DLC was a major release. In GC3 DLC's are a way of having modular game play without denying core game play to players who don't buy them. And by themselves they are a steal. In GC2 people had the option of galactic events being turned on but some didn't understand those random events could be GNP shattering and not what one usually expects in the random event category of gaming. Now mega random events are a DLC that is affordable so those who don't want to deal with them don't have to have them. Plus being in a DLC means they have been worked on more and you won't be disappointed if you buy them. The random events are game changers that can ruin your day in the GC3 universe and/or give that same day meaning. It creates a rewarding playing experience. At first you may feel daunted and be tempted to just start over but if you stick with it you learn more and can deal with more situations in the game. Plus if you achieve victory in one of those scenarios how much sweeter is the game play! It's not like in other space faring games where you get a notice an asteroid hit a planet and demolished a factory. I noticed a patch added mega events in game so you get some fun but the DLC adds more that has been well planned and coded. A DLC is planned for espionage. In GC2 espionage was rather basic. Because of Stardock's history of innovation I am looking forward to the DLC release of espionage. They can tinker with and upgrade and add to make it much more impressive.

The DLC Revenge of the Snathi adds story and game play value. It also adds something players can use even if they don't follow the story line. The map pack DLC has been complained about as should have been included in the core game. What people don't seem to remember is the map editor for GC2 was a mod project for the game and not supported by the development team. Other games come out with map editors out of the box that's true. I haven't any experience with GC3 map editor yet but a good question is: "Do you need to know how to code to create maps with GC3 map editor?" If you don't then the cost of the DLC is really a steal. A lot of work goes into something the more user friendly it gets. Most games that come out with a map editor require the user to use a scripting language or can be difficult to get what you want done without learning the system first. I don't have the game yet but it seems to me a player could easily use the map pack DLC with the map editor included to better integrate their own mod into the game with or without a scripting language. But if a scripting language is required to learn to use the map editor that would make it more powerful. Either way with the GC3 map editor it should be easier for modders to implement their mods, say like for a star trek or star wars mod. Also I haven't used it yet but I would think a really good editor would have a point and click system and also a scripting language. That way casual gamers that have imagination could get involved and implement fun things without needing to do homework before creating something and that in itself is fun. But at the same time with a scripting language those like me who enjoy programming can have a blast. And ultimately with a scripting language you can do a lot more in the long run.

With the DLC for a new player inexperienced to GC to come along and buy the game and the DLC at the same time could very well be a deal breaker because of the overall price. But at the same time for someone new to the GC universe to buy the game and all the DLC before playing the game seems silly. To me that seems like paying for a buffet and then only eating the deserts and complaining the meal cost to much. Well you left out the steak and mashed potatoes and went straight for the Oreo cheese cake so of course you paid too much for that Oreo cheese cake.

Stardock is not a money grubber. When they do something they do it right,well, and with innovation. Master of Orion was in my youth the game all other space 4X games were compared to. Master of Orion has been overthrown. MOO2 was a standard for a while. GalCiv2 changed things in the genre and Galactic Civilizations 3 has improved and expanded it. Plus its playable on low end systems. You can play it on a modern laptop with intel integrated graphics. You couldn't do that when GalCiv2 came out. A few years later you could.

Don't complain about GC3 being GC2 but the devs are making us buy DLC to have the same playing experience. Its not so. Other companies do that but not Stardock. GC3 is a different game and a different engine with many improvements on what makes up the core game play with added depth and game play elements which is exactly what a sequel is to do but usually does not do in the gaming industry. Command and Conquer series was the same thing but different titles were mainly different story lines. Those five dollar DLCs add depth and more playability and Stardock could easily have asked for more and it wouldn't be wrong for them to do so but you have a gamer at the helm of Stardock so we are all lucky. If you play GC3 for a while and then go back to GC2 I promise you will notice a difference and miss things from GC3. Not to say GC2 should be shelved, defiantly not.

Nope not a parody post. I was a beta tester for All GalCiv2 titles and I know Stardock knows what they are doing from experience being a beta tester. I've been keeping up with GC3 and I really am sorry I couldn't have participated in the beta and that I don't have a copy of GC3... yet. I've been busy with school during the entire beta process and more recently I started my own software company, getting it started up and releasing my own titles without a publisher is expensive and time consuming. I hope to in October buy a copy of GC3.

So have you even played the game? Perhaps you should wait until you have, before making claims about a game that your beta experience on a different title gives you no credibility to make. These forums have enough fanboyism imo. Enough smoke has been blown up Stardock *** as it is. Praise where praise is due is fine but Stardock needs to act more on the constructive criticism they have received imo.

There might be a Halloween Steam Sale on GC3 in October, I think you'll be in for a fright at how disappointing parts of GC3 currently are, many issues aren't immediately obvious and take many hours of play to realize. There's a reason why there are so many negative reviews on steam that perhaps $100 investors and Stardock wouldn't have you believe. Larsenex says the steam forums are hostile, doesn't come as a surprise to me tbh. Perhaps they have reason to be...

My advice for what it is worth is wait, GC3 isn't a lost cause yet but it needs a lot of work before it's worth what Stardock is currently asking for it imo. A steam sale around patch 1.5 could be the time to buy IF Stardock makes the progress that many people are hoping they do.

Yeah, you've given us two lengthy lectures about GC3 based on.... well, nothing. Telling us carriers aren't overpowered without ever actually experiencing the game was a bad move that was quickly torn to shreds by people who'd actually played; telling people that GC3 is well worth the money despite the fact that you haven't actually played it yourself is frankly disingenuous.

You have no idea whether GC3 is worth the money. You suspect it is, but you're basing it entirely on SD's reputation. Well, a lot of people bought Elemental based on that reputation, and SD themselves are quite honest about the fact that in the end Elemental was NOT worth the money. They made up for it by handing out the sequels for free, which was a classy move and bought a lot of goodwill... but it none the less shows that you can't just assure people that because SD made it, it is definitely going to be worth £50. You don't know if things have been implemented correctly; you don't know if the game has really included any significant improvements over GC2; hell, you don't know if the new engine actually works or how well it performs on a low-end system (the answer is actually 'not very well', with many features locked out and even smaller map sizes grinding to a halt quite quickly).

The post is entirely supposition and is asking to be torn apart by others who have actually parted with their money and found it less than satisfying, and you have no credibility to dispute them. I wouldn't post this to Steam, since anyone genuinely hostile will quite quickly point out that the OP doesn't have the game and so has no idea what he's talking about.

I've kept up with GC3 and I've watched video gameplay and dev streams. The manual can also be accessed online. My review is not about Stardock's reputation it's about GC2 and GC3 and the differences and noticing what has been added and improved.

I've kept up with GC3 and I've watched video gameplay and dev streams. The manual can also be accessed online. My review is not about Stardock's reputation it's about GC2 and GC3 and the differences and noticing what has been added and improved.

You have zero credibility. How about buying the game, playing a few hundred hours and then coming back and speaking to it?

Seriously? You've watched a couple of videos and have read the manual, and from that you're formulated an entire wall of text about how the game is a massive leap forward, well worth it, and the DLC is all excellent? You've got an entire passage in praise of the map editor... based entirely on Paul telling us the map editor is good in a dev stream?

You don't have a review. A review would be something written by someone who'd actually tried the product and reflecting on the experience. Not something written by someone who has seen some PR material and was impressed. That is what PR material is for. When SOTS 2 came out, Kerberos did not release a bunch of videos explaining that the game sucked. The manual did not have a section entitled 'massive flaws we didn't have time to deal with'. Watching the dev streams and reading through the manual, I'd have bought that game. Actually seeing the experience of genuine users, I didn't. That's a key difference. Those people wrote REVIEWS. At best, you've written an opinion piece. At worst, you're selling someone else's bridge.

All you've really got here is faith. And that faith is primarily based on knowing SD are basically consumer-focused guys. Hence, you trust the manual and the stuff that Paul has been saying, and your entire 'review' is entirely based on trusting SD's reputation, and has no basis in fact. Until you actually play the game for 10-20 hours, you don't have an informed opinion. Your impassioned defense of carriers as they stand, and your firm stance that you don't believe code changes are required is the clearest example of this - you simply have no idea what you're talking about, but are posing as an authority.

Now, I'm not anything like as harsh a critic as Macsen - I think GC3 is basically a good game that probably needs another 5-6 months of work to get it balanced and working properly and the patches are progressing well, while Macsen thinks giant chunks of it are completely broken or unfinished and that SD have been mucking about for the past 4 months dusting the sideboard while the ceiling falls in. We disagree on the extent of the issues, and we respect each other's opinion because both of us have racked up hundreds of hours of game time. We can give a reasoned opinion of whether the game was worth what we paid for it. I think it is, but then I'm not playing vanilla. He thinks it isn't, and he IS playing vanilla.

You can't. You haven't paid for it, you haven't played it, and now you're suggesting that people who have and are disappointed are wrong to raise their concerns. This is why Macsen thought your post was a joke. Because it IS a joke until you actually part with the money yourself and make an assessment based on the actual product.

Another reason Stardock did a great job on GC3 and has made improvements over GC2 is the galactic resources. I'll get more in depth here than I did in the original post. In GC3 controlling strategic resources on the map has a more specific and direct affect on combat than in GC2. In GC2 it was generalized. You get a military starbase and pump out modules for it which improves your ships defenses and weapons in its influence. Also the military galactic resource would apply general improvements across the board to all ships everywhere. In GC3 you can mine resources that will affect what weapons you can put on your ships and augments that can give you an edge. The Elerium Beam is a good example of this. Thulium can be used to create survey ships without the interstellar survey tech and it is less expensive and has less mass. And yes the resources are "tied" up with that one ship that has the weapon or the augment. So mining a lot of the same resources and protecting them is important. How fair would it be if another player showed up on your doorstep with a fleet full of Elerium Beams and access to only one of the resources that produced the Elerium Beam? You want heavy firepower from beams without researching beam tech here it is. Devote your research efforts elsewhere. Or perhaps you like missile weapons but one enemy race which doesn't like you has made it a point to defend against missiles but their shield rating is low. You don't need to go tromping through the research tree to deal with that. There are augments to increase weapon range, damage, to decrease your enemies defenses. You can mine resources which will decrease your enemies shields by half (at the same time your beam weapons loose 25% effectiveness) and another will decrease your enemies armor by half. Not across the board but in the battle. Sometimes you may need tech to also benefit from the resource.

In GC2 if you were up against a large empire that had way more tech than you it was possible to win but it was more possible to loose badly. In GC3 resources are much more important than general asteroid mining to increase ship build up. And another aspect of the game is you have to decide how you will use that resource you are mining. Will it be better suited for putting the Elerium Beam on your ship or for increasing your shield strength by 25%? Are enemy missiles giving you a headache and your tech level in point defense is lacking? Mine the right resource and apply it properly and you can give yourself an edge. And if the enemy is mining the right resources and causing you trouble if you take the resources away from them they loose their edge because they don't have a tech edge they have a resource edge. Stardock innovation.

Resources are much more important and can be used in a variety of ways to suit your style of play (how you rule the galaxy) and deal with a specific situation in the game which you couldn't in GC2 unless you had the tech.

Sigh, why are you doing this? No-one cares what you think about the game, because you have never played the game and cannot give an informed opinion.

Look, GC3 is half price on Steam right now. Go and buy it. Play it for 10 or 20 hours. Develop a critical understanding of the game so that you can discuss the actual balance in an educated manner. Then come back and we'll listen to you. Stop just spamming bollocks you've picked up off the wiki, since among other things it's out of date and factually incorrect in a lot of cases.

Otherwise, we're just going to keep taking the piss out of you. Because really, recycling freely-available promotional material that anyone can go and read is not required and kinda feeds into that whole 'comes across as a jerk' thing. No-one's going to read this thread, see the other posts pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about, and then go 'oh, another wall of text on something he has no experience of whatsoever, that's definitely going to be worth a read!'.

If it weren't for the LACK OF CAPITAL ABUSE, I'd swear it was just Marigoldran running a prank account.

If it weren't for the LACK OF CAPITAL ABUSE, I'd swear it was just Marigoldran running a prank account.

You're not far off, but it's not marigoldran. I'm not sure why he would create a duplicate account and post as if he knew what he was talking about, but I suspect he just wanted to spam his "company" name on a site that's actually visited.

To be fair, I also have a duplicate posting account, but it's tied to duplicate Stardock game licenses.